Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Levon Khachigian


 * The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review).  No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was   keep. Mark Arsten (talk) 00:58, 22 August 2013 (UTC)

Levon Khachigian

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Subject is not notable per WP:ACADEMIC. Tim Bennett (talk) 06:06, 14 August 2013 (UTC)


 * Comment - On the contrary, it would appear subject is notable as per WP:ACADEMIC. Furthermore it would seem the article has been cleaned up and then nominated for deletion by someone associated with the university for which the subject works, suggesting a strong conflict of interest. 09:17, 14 August 2013 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by CraigLPST (talk • contribs)


 *  Weak Keep - This alleged case of academic misconduct is certainly notable, but it is very important that Wikipedia's policies on biographies of living people be carefully followed. All sources must be reliable and verifiable, and this article must in no way preempt the findings of any investigation. Everyone is innocent until proven guilty. It is important that proportionate space be given to the major viewpoints and any and all libelous material be removed.-- Forward  Unto   Dawn  10:56, 14 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000(talk) 13:35, 14 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000(talk) 13:35, 14 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000(talk) 13:35, 14 August 2013 (UTC)


 * Keep Full professor at a university, president of two learned societies, research awards, lots of influential pubs. Appears to satisfy Notability (academics) . Edison (talk) 04:20, 15 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Comment: As the editor who initiated the page in question (and apologies for whatever wrongs committed), I should note that the article should be balanced and comprehensive, while not defamatory or, say, compromise due process. Certainly, further work on the article must be done, as opposed to merely removing material.
 * With regard to the OP's "Subject is not notable per WP:ACADEMIC" comment, I should direct him (presumably) to WP:ACADEMIC and caution that, as an employee of the University of New South Wales and, especially, as one who has worked in media and comms division, there is potential for conflict of interest or an understandable bias against having a page such as this. --Qwerty Binary (talk) 14:17, 15 August 2013 (UTC)
 * By the way, thank you for not nominating this with the rationale: "Subject is not notable as per WP:ACADEMIC". :) --Qwerty Binary (talk) 14:19, 15 August 2013 (UTC)


 * Keep. A GS h-index of around 48 easily satisfies WP:Prof even in this highly cited field. Nominator is reminded that WP:Competence provides for the removal of editing privileges of people who are unable to edit Wikipedia with competence. Xxanthippe (talk) 07:12, 18 August 2013 (UTC).
 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.